On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 2:45 PM, jahanian <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Mar 6, 2015, at 9:36 AM, David Blaikie <[email protected]> wrote: > > Would it be plausible to check this on templates directly, rather than on > their instantiations? This would be less work in the case of multiple > instantiations, avoid redundant diagnostics, fail on templates without > instantiations rather than creating a lurking failure, and we might even > get all the "dependent" tests for free - because we wouldn't be able to > look through the dependent types at all. > > > It could be plausible. But, in similar cases, checking is done on the > instantiated templates and not on the templates directly. This adds another > check in the > same code block. Providing a new iteration on templates for this one check > is prohibitively expensive (and we normally don’t do much checking on > templates). > It is? I'd be curious to see the numbers, as it sounds like you have some. > Do you see anything inherently wrong to adding this check where it is? > Just the issues I mentioned - duplicate diagnostics in the case of multiple instantiations (& no diagnostics in the case of no instantiations). > > - Fariborz > > > - David > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 10:39 AM, jahanian <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> This patch restricts issuing -Winconsistent-missing-override when dealing >> with >> class template with dependent bases and dependent methods. >> Fixed pr22582 rdar://19917107. >> Please review. >> >> - Fariborz >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> cfe-commits mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >> >> > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
